Thanks for
having the courage to print my article, "Women Can Be Pastors
in the Churches of God; Here's Why" in the June 30 issue.

However, I
need to point out two errors that were added during the editing
of my article.

Whoever edited
my article changed "Paul knew these two [Junia and Andronicus]"
to "Paul knew Junia and Barabbas." The famous criminal
Barabbas was never linked with Junia, nor was he ever in prison
with Paul!

Where the second
error appeared, I originally had written, "Both were Christians
before Paul was," and this was edited to become "Junia
and Barabbas were Christians before Paul was."

I realize that
with an entire paper to edit it is easy to quickly put down the
wrong name, but I want your readers to know that I don't think
Junia and Barabbas were ever a team; it was Junia and Andronicus!

Again, I appreciate
your hard work in getting out The Journal. We all need it!

Dianne D. McDonnell

Arlington, Texas

Where God
looks

I think it
interesting that we have such bias in religion today toward women
as qualified leaders of God's people when we are supposed to credit
God with dwelling in those who lead.

Do we think
He needs a man in order to mentally function?

Does He have
to look tough, or just elitist?

Perhaps He
can justify His use of any woman by the fact that, if women have
the Holy Spirit and God sends them through that Spirit, what man
is going to undo that?

In Luke 2:36-37
the prophetess Anna taught in the temple and prophesied through
the Holy Spirit. I don't see any place where God negates her testimony.
If God is there, who is that shepherd who will stand before Him
and defy Him? (Jeremiah 49:19; 50:44).

Eve was not
made subject to her husband because she was a woman but because
she ate of the dragon's "tree" (Genesis 3:16). How many
ministers do that same thing now on a daily basis?

Maybe God should
make us subject to our wives when we reject His Word and follow
men and organizations and seek political and monetary gain instead
of promoting a relationship with God on an individual basis (1
John 2:27).

God says He
looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), not the reproductive organs.

Jacob Prince

Via the Internet

Too appealing

I would like
to offer this suggestion, for what it is worth, to Dan Cafourek,
Ned Dancuo and those others who have been, or may one day be,
allowed to become members of the brotherhood of free, unfettered,
truth-seeking individuals:

Forget about
trying to be reinstated or making appeals for further study into
your particular situation, and instead use the time to locate
a group where your thoughts and opinions will be welcome. You
just might learn, as I and many others have, how stifling to new
thoughts has been your prior association and how good it feels
to be able to voice your opinions without fear of repercussions.

In time I feel
sure you will be pleasantly surprised as to how much greater your
spiritual growth has become.

Jesse Kelley

Tuttle, Okla.

Trick or
treat from the UCG?

In my opinion
the United Church of God has the best publications and booklets
of any of the Church of God groups.

However, the
UCG spoils it all by the attitude and actions of many of its leaders
and ministers.

At times they
are downright amusing. At other times they are sad and pathetic.

A couple of
recent reports in The Journal will illustrate. I'm sure many,
like me, got a chuckle out of the on-again, off-again apology
from the UCG's Frank McCrady to the nearby Church of God Big Sandy
as reported in your March issue. It's a safe bet Big Sandy pastor
Dave Havir has had many sleepless nights over that one.

Your reports
on Dan Cafourek's run-in with the UCG in your April and June issues
bordered on pantomime. Someone put it well by saying, as you reported,
"The UCG is up to its old tricks again."

Readers of
The Journal and its predecessor, In Transition, cannot help but
observe that the UCG has consistently pulled "old tricks"
on its out-of-favor ministers and congregations since its inception
in 1995. These old tricks are nothing more than a continuation
of the old my-way-or-the-highway approach so prevalent among these
same dudes when they were in the employ of the Worldwide Church
of God.

Good old Melvin
Rhodes can preach 100 sermons at the church's annual conference
about the evils of trigger-happy disfellowshipping and Richard
Pinelli and company simply will not get it.

I have an idea
for Mr. Cafourek with which he might have some fun. It has been
confirmed by a witness (a letter to The Journal) that Larry Greider,
Dan's now-former regional pastor, did indeed say in a sermon that
the UCG was the bride of Christ and that the other church groups
are only bridesmaids.

That statement
runs contrary to the UCG's official position on the status of
other groups. I suggest Dan immediately contact Mr. Pinelli and
all of the UCG's council of elders and allege that Larry Greider
is out there preaching heresy and call for his removal pending
his repentance and apology to the other Church of God groups for
calling them only bridesmaids.

Really, folks,
I have difficulty seeing Mr. Greider in a white dress.

John Walsh

Napa, Calif.

The nail
on the head

Brian Knowles'
essay on doctrinal reform ["Here's Why Doctrinal Reform Won't
Happen Anytime Soon," July 30] seems to have offended a few
people who are incapable of thinking outside the box.

I thought it
hit the nail on the head. For many years Church of God members
were spoonfed the gospel according to Herbert W. Armstrong. His
analysis of Scripture was final. A lowly lay member or Ambassador
College student simply did not have a deep enough understanding
of spiritual things to disagree with the apostle's interpretation
of Scripture, never mind that we were constantly admonished to
prove all things.

In recent years
many "truths" we came to believe in became suspect by
examining the Scriptures. Since we are products of what we are
taught, we believe in these precepts and live our lives accordingly.

Ideas that
are iconoclastic (destructive to cherished beliefs) rarely sit
well in our psyche. Try to talk to an unreceptive mind about Christmas
and Easter and what response do you get?

I want to state
that I respected Mr. Armstrong as a great teacher, and he was
the man who brought most of us into whatever level of understanding
we have attained. It would be difficult to deny he was God's instrument
to reveal knowledge to the Churches of God.

So do not think
this is HWA bashing.

Some of the
things I am about to say will offend someone, but if a person
reacts this way he is simply not facing reality. Brainwashing
101 is an effective class.

My own experience
with the church goes back 40 years. I attended the first SEP in
1962 and Ambassador College, Big Sandy, 1966-1970. For a young
boy and young man, those were exciting times.

I believe HWA
started out with a correct and humble attitude in seeking truth,
and as he was led along that path much was revealed to him.

As time went
by, he became corrupted by his own self-importance and the wealth
and power at his command. He himself told us at least 1,000 times,
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

He became a
victim of his own ego and fell prey to the trappings of human
nature. When he became ruler of the vast church empire with command
of the financial resources and no human being to answer to, he
became a dictator.

With money,
power, control and minions to do his bidding, the similarities
between him and Hitler, Napoleon and other despots is remarkable.
He became obsessed with power and his own ironfisted rulership.

I remember
HWA liked to recite one of his edicts that went like this:

"When
I'm in Bricket Wood, who's in charge?"

"I am!"

"When
I'm in Big Sandy, who's in charge?"

"I am!"

And so on.
Funny how, when our president leaves the country or when a military
leader leaves his base, someone else is in charge.

At this time
many of the old beliefs are being questioned, and I hope great
strides toward truth are being made.

I have talked
with people who are mired in the old ways, in the keeping of the
law as if that will earn salvation. I think it is time to look
at what really matters, what Jesus and Paul taught about love
and loving your neighbor.

This is the
bottom line, the true Christianity. Love is not a license to sin,
but a Christian shows love for his fellowman and God by not breaking
God's commandments.

I never could
figure out why HWA would always quote only the first part of Romans
6:23, "The wages of sin is death," and leave out "But
the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

This was part
of the concept of ironfisted rule, keeping control over the people,
God's government, etc. Maybe I missed something in reading the
New Testament, but the examples of Jesus and the early apostles
seem to be quite different.

John Dickerson

txndwnunder@yahoo.com

Canyon Lake, Texas, and

Canberra, Australia

The Jews
had two calendar choices

I had hoped
we had seen an end to the wrangling over the holy-day calendar,
but the recent articles by Steve Bruns and Theda Horton [July
30 issue] have kept the debate going.

Steve presents
what would appear to be a strong case for the Karaite Jewish calendar,
but he contradicts himself on at least one point. He insists the
Bible alone can be used to determine the correct holy days, but
he then proceeds to cite numerous lexicons and concordances to
"prove" his point.

You cannot
use the Bible alone to prove what is a new moon. You can get close,
within a day or two, as most of the various calendars do.

Theda's article
adequately explains the lunar cycle and the origin of crescent
observance.

An observed
calendar, such as the Karaites and some church members use, was
never designed to be used on a worldwide basis because the new-moon
crescent can appear anywhere on earth on any given month.

They insist
that the new month cannot begin until the crescent is seen in
the Jerusalem area. That means that people just west of Israel
who see it first must wait another full day to begin the month.

That is nothing
more than a postponement, which they so stridently condemn when
it comes to the Jewish calendar.

Also, those
east of Jerusalem to the international date line who see it first
will have to begin the new month on the next day on the Roman
calendar. Does that make sense?

Before the
era of rapid communication, when the Jews were scattered around
the world, how were they to know which days to observe?

There were
only two choices:

 Local
observation, which meant some would be at least a day off from
others in other parts of the world.

 What
Hillel and the Sanhedrin gave us: the calculated calendar.

Some Jews keep
two days for each holy day, except for Atonement, just to be sure
of getting one right. Can you find that in the Bible?

If it was okay
to be a day off then, why not now?

If it were
not permissible to be a day off the mark, then the calculated
calendar was the only answer. If God were so concerned that each
holy day be kept on the "right" day by everyone, He
would have made the instruction as plain as He made the Sabbath
command.

Larry Evans

Bloomington, Ill.

Car and
driver

Just finished
reading the Journal article about Buck Hammer ["Where Were
You in the Fall of 1953?," July 30]. It mentioned that Herbert
Armstrong had a 1948 Chrysler.

Now, it didn't
say whether it was a Windsor, Royal, New Yorker or Imperial. All
four models were classy chassis. My dad and I owned several Chryslers
of the 1946-48 vintage, Windsors and New Yorkers. They weren't
new like Herbert's, but the big eights were modified enough to
feel their oats.

My dad's rod
was a 1948 New Yorker four-door painted polo green, with an Imperial
engine in it and with a milled head and the big carburetor.

Mine was a
New Yorker convertible, black with an interior I put in myself.
Had pearl-white buttons and tufts in three-tone white, red and
black.

The transmission
in all Chryslers was an M6 four-speed semiautomatic. It was connected
to the engine by a fluid coupling and clutch. (Fluid coupling
= torque converter for you younguns.) I was working as a engine-and-chassis
specialist at a Chrysler dealership just out of high school and
did a few tricks with the timing, etc., that made it a real sleeper:
a 5,000-pound 20-foot-long charger.

I remember
one day on the way to work running by a 1956 Ford convert with
Fordomatic and leaving him in the dust.

"What
you got in there?" he asked in amazement. An old-timer like
that ain't supposed to go like it went.

I gave him
a big knowing smile. Just an oldie but goodie. The trick was,
you started out in first gear (compound low that could pull stumps
or jump that 5,000-pound beast off the line like a mule getting
branded with a hot poker). Then let up on the gas and depress
the clutch.

As fast as
you could do that maneuver the car shifted itself into second
gear. Third was obtained by manually going to high range, clutch
in and out in a split second and gas to the floor. Fourth was
attained like you did second. Shifting was faster than a normal
manual or automatic, and the ratios were very close.

How could such
a thing happen in the days of yore? The M6 was wired and had a
governor that engaged a solenoid.

When the gas
pedal was raised and the engine RPM dropped, the governor points
closed and charged the solenoid, which was waiting for the right
RPM to shift to the next range. Two in low and two in high.

By depressing
the gas pedal above 10 miles per hour, you had the equivalent
of today's passing gear. It closed manually; the contacts and
the solenoid did their thing.

With a tenth
of an inch milled off the head for higher compression and a larger
carburetor, the big cruiser moved out smartly and saw 105 at the
top end with room to spare. (Don't try this today, but back in
the late '50s early '60s you could still find roads to unwind
on.)

Yes, the old
'48 Chrysler was a real automobile. HWA picked a winner there.

Even the Big
Four, which was a term of endearment for the flying squad of Detroit's
finest, could not touch our Chryslers. They had '57 De Sotos,
and we used to race down Charlevoix in the heart of Detroit. We
had about a mile stretch of road in front of the Bud Co., and
Sunday races between me and the police were always exciting, especially
if I had a newbie on board for the ride.

They were great
guys, those detectives. Used to stop and frisk me in front of
my friends, in gas stations, in restaurants or at a street corner
just for kicks, saying things like, Aha, we got you now!

My mom missed
their humor when they stopped me in front of my house one day
and she saw them going through their routine. They gave me quite
a reputation in the hood. The neighbors had all kinds of gossip
about what was I involved in to get such special treatment.

Bet The Journal
never knew it would bring back such fond memories. Keep up the
good work!

Shelby W. Davis

La Follette, Tenn.

Protect
the weak in the faith

Thanks for
your newspaper. It's a needed service.

I do have a
concern, though. There are some crackpots out there. Giving them
so much space in the paper isn't good, in my opinion.

Knowing others'
beliefs can strengthen our own, but some are weak in the faith
and can't discern very well. I do wish and pray for articles by
Ray Wooten and David Antion and other men who have balance.

I think balance
is the word The Journal needs to strive for.

Dave Havir
is a breath of fresh air for sure.

Audrey Tolson

Clay City, Ky.

The enticement
of makeup

In regard to
the article by Jan Young in the July 30 issue of The Journal,
there are several points in contrast to that submission that need
to be made.

The author
constantly contends that women who wear makeup wear it only for
sexual enticement and to conform to the world' standards.

She implies
it is immoral and hypocritical to wear makeup. She states that
women who wear it are as "addicts, needing a fix," and
women are copying Jezebel.

I agree that
prostitutes wear makeup to sexually entice men. This is wrong
and obviously sinful, but to suggest that all women wear makeup
for these immoral reasons of sex and self-promotion above others
is wrong!

Throughout
the article I noticed comments referring to beauty pageants as
being sexist and racist, that bras may cause cancer by heat buildup
and the restriction of the lymph system.

The author
specifically writes: "I hate makeup because it's one of the
most unfair double standards that exists. It's required for women
but not men in Western society."

This attitude
from the author, to sum it up, appears to me to be one of a strict
feminist view. She not only is against makeup but against anything
that separates men and women.

I just wonder
if the author has a problem with the man being the head of the
household.

But, again,
I am not judging. That is between her and God. It is not my job
or anyone else's to judge her, just as she should not be doing
so with women who choose to use makeup moderately.

She is equating
makeup with sex, and that is not accurate.

Personally,
I feel the subject is old baggage that is revived time and time
again. As the people of God, we should not be so worried with
these unimportant, even trivial matters. With the state the world
is in and prophecies closer to being fulfilled, we should be doing
as God commands and preach the gospel unto the end.

In regards
to the makeup issue, we have more important things to do.

Sherry L. Haney

Chattanooga, Tenn.

A note of
clarification about Jan Aaron Young's essay in the July 30 issue:
Mr. Young's three-page article, "Why God Is Against Makeup,"
appeared as a paid announcement, part of Connections, the advertising
section of The Journal.

Also, for
the writer's information, Jan Aaron Young is a he, not a she.

Wake up

I read the
article by Brian Knowles in the May issue and was finally driven
to voice concern for seeing some of God's people drifting toward
false religion and calling it good enough.

Let's be realistic.
It is the world's idea to have the great ecumenical collection
of all religions under one roof and believe that we are all worshiping
the same God.

I have noticed
the trend for some of God's people to move in the direction of
traditional Christianity and their churches and away from the
sound doctrines that were delivered to and received by us.

This is the
same mind-set the world has: seeing all "Christianity"
as under the same roof and equal in God's eyes.

Some say traditional
Christians just haven't been given as much as we have in knowledge
from God, but they are still true Christians.

This, of course,
makes it easy to justify our differences, even to minimize or
eliminate the obvious differences by believing that false doctrine
is really God's fault. We don't want to offend, so let's just
all get along and not be concerned about the differences, right?

I have no problem
with sharing our beliefs with others, but to climb into the same
church traditions and practices that are obviously contrary to
God's Word is a dangerous practice, even if we think we are holding
fast to God's truth.

Brian writes
that "all" (who attend traditional Christian or other
services), in some ways, are finding their spiritual needs met
in these "churches."

Could it be
that their spiritual weaknesses are being met and supported instead?
Are we going to now believe that God's truth is being preached
and believed in these churches?

The apologists
within the Churches of God want us to be one big happy Christian
family and have lost sight of the obvious difference God Himself
places on such traditions and flagrant misuse of Scripture. The
Laodicean attitude shows clearly in those who believe they are
being spiritually fed by false religion disguised as Christ's
church.

How could the
very elect be deceived simply by signs and wonders unless their
very foundation and discernment between that which is true and
godly and that which is Satan's counterfeit religious system has
been compromised?

Yes, they are
nice people. Yes, they are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong,
and this approach is an abomination to God (1 Corinthians 10:10-21).

Compromise
is so easy, yet it simply weakens God's people. If we cast aside
the truths of God for fellowship with false Christianity, we deny
the true Jesus Christ.

If we believe
our light is stronger than Satan's deceptions, and that we can
flirt with false Christianity and not be affected, we deceive
ourselves and are being lulled to sleep.

God help us
to wake up.

Jeff Maehr

Pagosa Springs, Colo.

Israel's
loss is the beast's gain

Herbert W.
Armstrong predicted: Israel's loss of four sea gates will allow
the beast to rise.

What Mr. Armstrong
predicted about strategic sea gates, just before World War II
(which was fulfilled shortly afterwards in type), again demands
our attention.

The apostle
John predicted the "beast [will] rise up out of the sea"
(Revelation 13:1). Once Britain and America entirely lose their
grip on these four sea gates, which give access to the beast's
underbelly, the Mediterranean Sea, the beast will be free to rise.

The other three
sea gates Mr. Armstrong was doubtless referring to are the Bosporus
and the Dardanelles Strait, running through Turkey, and the Strait
of Gibraltar.

As of 2002
Britain has decided to share Gibraltar with Spain, which will
definitely be part of the final resurrected Roman Empire.

Turkey--through
which the Bosporus and Dardanelles pass--is currently friendly
with America and Britain. She is also trying to become a full
member of the European Union and showing signs of reverting to
an Islamic state. Either way, those conflicting loyalties are
bound to strip America and Britain of the use of these sea gates.

The Turkish
people are the modern descendants of Esau, the older twin brother
of Jacob (who was renamed Israel). Their conflict started even
in the womb of their mother, as Genesis 25:20-28 explains. Jacob
later bought the birthright from Esau (verses 29-34) and tricked
their father into giving it to him. God allowed this because Esau
disdained the birthright, not appreciating its great value.

Esau was also
called Edom (Genesis 25:30). Mr. Armstrong showed that the prophet
Obadiah predicted that in the end time Edom--that is, modern-day
Turkey--would terribly betray the Israelites. This would include
Britain and America losing access to the Bosporus and the Dardanelles
Strait sea gates.

Mr. Armstrong
showed that later, in the Day of the Lord, God would dry up the
daughter of Babylon's sea; that is, the Mediterranean Sea of the
end-time descendant of Babylon (see Jeremiah 51:33, 36).

Herbert Armstrong's
Bible-based prediction that Britain and America would lose control
of the Suez Canal and the Bosporus, Dardanelles and Gibraltar--before
the final "Holy" Roman Empire fully emerged--is now
a lot easier to see than it was in 1934 or 1939.

It also means
we are on the verge of seeing the rise of that beast power of
Revelation 13: the seventh revival of the Roman Empire.

Mr. Armstrong
further prophesied that the power base in Europe, including the
dried-up Mediterranean Sea, of the final Roman Empire--whose religion
is really Babylonian--will be uninhabited during the Millennium
(see Jeremiah 51; Revelation 17-19). That's how great the devastation
will be that God brings on the enemies of America, Britain and
the Jewish state after the Great Tribulation.

Geoffrey R. Neilson

Fish Hoek, South Africa

Prophecy
update

This week the
first of my four new books on the migrations, empires and modern
locations of the tribes of Israel goes to the printer. The other
three books will shortly follow.

There will
also be a considerable amount of new information about the history
of the tribes of Israel.

The books will
reprint photographs of important artifacts, now located in American
museums, which confirm the presence of Hebrew-speaking explorers
and colonists in ancient America.

The titles
of the four new books:

 Origins
and Empire of Ancient Israel.

 Israel's
Lost Colonies.

 Parthia:
The Forgotten Ancient Superpower.

 Israel's
Lost Tribes Today.

Each book will
be 250-280 pages long, with the material divided to follow logical
divisions in the history of the Israelites.

My first book
had so much material that it required small print, small margins,
etc. The volume of new material made it impossible to consider
placing all the new pages in one book. The division of the material
into four books will make them more readable than my first book.

The new book
series begins with the calling of Abraham instead of the reign
of King David (as did my first book). This will result in the
new books covering the entire history of the Abrahamic covenant
and the entire history of the blessings given to his "birthright"
descendants.

In covering
about eight centuries more than my first book, such topics as
the unusual dynamics of Jacob's family, the true location of Mount
Sinai, the Exodus and new evidence about the presence of the Israelites
in ancient Egypt and in the Promised Land will be covered.

As a teaser,
one piece of new evidence confirms that one group of Israelites
in the postexilic period actually began using a modern technology
about 18 centuries before it was reinvented in the modern era.

Prices are
not yet set but will be given to The Journal as soon as possible.

When the new
books are ready, some of the first copies off the press will go
The Journal for review.

I wish to thank
everyone interested in these books for their patience in waiting
for their release.

Steven M. Collins

Sioux Falls, S.D.

The Russians
aren't coming!

Steven Collins'
alternative view of end-time events, which sees a Russian-led
Asiatic alliance as the threat to a united EuropeanNorth
AmericanBritish alliance ["COG Author Presents a New
View of Prophecy," The Journal, March 25], needs to be briefly
critiqued.

The most interesting
result of Mr. Collins' revisionism:

"We're
the beast!" That is, if the United States, Britain, Canada
and the German-led European Union (through NATO) stand united
against Russia and the Asiatic hordes led by her, we're the king
of the north of Daniel 11:40-45.

Further, this
means we're Babylon the Great as well, and the false prophet would
hold just as much sway in the United States, Britain and Canada
as he would on the Continent.

The underlying
mistake in Mr. Collins' revisionism is the rejection of duality
in prophecy. As the cases of the virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14-19
(see also 8:3-4) and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 9:27;
11:31; 12:11 (see also Matthew 24:15) show, a prophecy can be
dual without its explicitly claiming duality.

There is no
requirement for a prophecy to mention the phrase "in the
latter days" for it to be applicable to eschatological concerns.

The context
of a prophecy, such as about Israel and Judah's return to the
Holy Land (such as Jeremiah 50:4-5, 19-20) has to be examined
to see if its specific conditions were totally fulfilled in the
past or not before being rejected as a candidate for end-time
events.

Mr. Collins
is much too restrictive in his procedure by insisting that some
formula like "in the latter days" must appear in a prophecy
for it to apply to then.

Duality, such
as what happened to Joseph vis a vis his brothers (most of whose
descendants, besides Judah's, are or will be in the EU) being
repeated (that is, captivity followed by a revelation of actual
identity), doesn't have to be announced explicitly for it to become
true.

Hence such
prophecies as Hosea 5:1-15; 12:1-2, 8-14 concerning the wars between
Assyria and the house of Israel need not be automatically dismissed
from having future fulfillments.

The claim that
Israel (and Judah) will be triumphant by the force of their own
arms by God's power against this Russian-Asiatic alliance runs
into a hard rock such as Jeremiah 30:7-11.

In this text,
after the great tribulation of "Jacob's trouble," Israel
has to be delivered from bondage and slavery after being punished
by God.

Similarly,
it's hard to see the regathering after Israel's punishment for
its sins as described in Ezekiel 39:23-29 to be fulfilled in the
events of the Babylonian captivity and the return of the exiles
under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah or in the diaspora caused
by Rome's crushing of the two Jewish revolts in Palestine (A.D.
66-73 and 132-35) being reversed by the Zionist movement of the
20th century.

Another major
of mistake of Mr. Collins is to assume all the mistaken predictions
of timing Mr. Armstrong and other Worldwide Church of God leaders
have made down through the decades were the result of believing
that a German-led European attack on the descendants of Joseph
would occur.

These, rather,
were the results of desiring Jesus' return, God's government and
eternal life so intensely that errors of timing were made.

During the
Cold War years (1945-91), the church could have proclaimed, "The
Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" But then we
would have ended up with an equal amount of egg on our faces.

To date, HWA's
old article (originally published in 1948) "Why Russia Will
Not Attack America?" has proven completely correct. Indeed,
with the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union's breakup, Russia's
fall to economic ruin and demographic implosion, and the increasing
political and economic unity of the European Union (as most dramatically
shown through the introduction of the euro), it appears Mr. Collins
is giving up on the church's traditional view of the house of
Israel's main enemy just as current events make it more possible
than ever!

Some may find
it of value to track down The Philadelphia Trumpet [published
by the Philadelphia Church of God, Edmond, Okla.] of February
2000 ("He Was Right! Remember Five Decades of Accurate Forecasting
by Herbert W. Armstrong") to get the rest of the story that
many in the various COGs tend to forget these days.

Therefore there
are good reasons to reconsider Mr. Collins' revisionist prophetic
scenario that the houses of Israel and Judah will be united with
a German-led Europe against Russian-led Asiatic hordes.

It's still
better for the church to proclaim to our nations, spiritually
practicing the principle found in the watchman's duty of Ezekiel
33: "The Germans are coming! The Germans are coming!"

Eric Snow

Wixom, Mich.

Who owns
the 18 truths?

Certain questions
need to be asked and answered about the so-called "18 restored
truths" of Herbert W. Armstrong as listed in Robert and Joyce
Thiel's article in the July 30 issue.

First, are
they indeed truths? Second, were they indeed restored?

And what of
the ethics of editing HWA's writings after he's gone?

Is it possible
that those who hold the copyright to them may believe that by
disseminating them they are doing more harm than good?

Has anyone
actually talked to Joe Tkach about how he feels about HWA's writings?

Whose property
are they?

Do they belong
under the stewardship of Joe Tkach?

Should they
have been inherited by HWA's son, Garner Ted?

Should they
have been given to Gerald Flurry or Rod Meredith?

Was it ethical
to edit HWA's words posthumously?

There are many
ethical, theological and philosophical issues surrounding the
preservation and dissemination of HWA's writings. Someone should
work them through before decisions are made.

More important,
each of these 18 teachings needs to be reexamined against the
background of Hebrew-roots studies.

The early church
for the first decade of its existence was entirely Jewish. What
needs to be understood here is how the Jewish believers viewed
their incoming gentile associates in terms of Torah.

Each doctrine
needs to be detached from the baggage of HWA's mystique and surrounding
traditions and viewed critically in its own right, applying the
principles of sound exegesis and hermeneutics.

I would also
challenge the whole nonsensical discussion about the "Philadelphian"
and "Sardis" "eras."

Years ago Ted
Armstrong produced an excellent article disproving this bogus
notion. I'm not sure whether it's still available through his
current organization or not.

One wonders
if the authors of this article have read any of the voluminous
Journal copy on the subjects listed as "truths." Many
of these topics have been treated critically in the pages of The
Journal over the years. Do any of the HWA hardliners read any
of these articles?

HWA's teachings
are only "orthodox" for those who view them as normative.
For the rest of us, many of his teachings are simply erroneous.

This article,
though undoubtedly well-intentioned and loyal in tone, perpetuates
the growing cult of personality that surrounds the figure of Herbert
W. Armstrong.

Brian Knowles

Monrovia, Calif.

The August 2002
issue of The Journal includes many photos and several other graphics,
besides the Connections advertising section. Don't forget to subscribe
to the print version of The Journal to read all the news and features
previewed here.